Here is what I need help doing:

Using PepsiCo as a competitor in a previous assignment, create an executive summary presentation of the findings on PepsiCo from the Topic 3 report (seven to nine slides, exclusive of the title and reference slides) with appropriate speaker notes that could be delivered to a C-suite executive in a corporation. Note that while you should provide comparisons to PepsiCo's competitor, Coca Cola, and the industry averages, the executive summary should focus on PepsiCo. Include the following in your presentation:

A summary of the industry and PepsiCo.

An overview of PepsiCo's liquidity ratios relative to the industry averages and to the competitor, CocaCola.

An overview of PepsiCo's solvency ratios relative to the industry averages and to the competitor. CocaCola.

An overview of PepsiCo's profitability ratios relative to the industry averages and to the competitor, CocaCola.

Describe the importance of the budgeting process in PepsiCo relative to these ratios.

Prepare a reasonable objective for each of the four strategic areas of a balanced scorecard, including proposed key performance indicators for determining target achievement.

Identify which ratios impact capital budgeting decisions and explain how these ratios impact the decisions.

A concluding summary of how PepsiCo performed compared to the competitor, CocaCola and the industry.

Be sure to cite three to five relevant sources in support of your content.

Title slide and reference slide are not included in the slide count. Include speaker notes below each content-related slide that represent what would be said if giving the presentation in person. Expand upon the information included in the slide and do not simply restate it. Ensure that the speaker notes include 50-100 words per slide.

Here is what I have written already and gathered all the information needed. This needed to be a PowerPoint or, if you are not able to do that, written out to be put into slides.

Coca-Cola with the ticker KO, and PepsiCo with the ticker PEP, are two of the world's largest competitors in the Beverage Industry. These powerhouse companies dominate the industry by leveraging a combined Market Cap of over 460 billion dollars. In the following, we will assess these companies' viability to maintain their current positions in the market compared to each other and in the industry. By examining given data points, to include the following liquidity, profitability, and solvency one can determine the company's ability to sustain or grow in the market. Upon initial investigation of a company's viability, one would be drawn to start its analytical process by evaluating a company's profitability. Profitability defines a measure of the income or operating success of a company for any given period. Utilizing Gross Margin and Return on Equity (ROE) we can evaluate a company's profitability relative to its competitors and the Industry Average. PepsiCo shows a three-year average Gross Margin of 54.55% and a Return on Equity of 57.26%. While Coca-Cola shows a three-year average Gross Margin of 60.12% and a Return on Equity of 44.88%. We can see that both companies outperformed the Industry Average of 43% Gross Margin and 27.10% Return on Equity. Even though both companies outperformed the industry average the data shows a split, with PepsiCo showing a better Return on Equity and Coca-Cola displaying a better Gross Margin. Additionally, solvency can be an indicator of a company's ability to survive over a long period of time and is a measure of its overall long-term debt to assets. Debt to EBITDA and Debt to Equity are indicators that we will be using to evaluate PepsiCo and Coca-Cola to each other and the Industry Average. While PepsiCo's Debt to EBITDA of 281.86% is lower than CocaCola's at 358.92%, Coca-Cola shows a better Debt to Equity of 210.99% versus PepsiCo's 265.49%. This is an area that the data displays or indicates both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola underperforming the Industry Average Debt to EBITDA of 140.90\% and Debt to Equity of 67.65%. While the data indicates neither company dominates over its rival, the fact that both companies are underperforming the market Industry Average is probably related to the gargantuan size of these companies versus the Industry Average. Finally, the capability of a company to pay its debt in the short term can help an investor determine the company's capacity to grow its market share. By observing the Quick Ratio and Current Ratio we can ascertain the business's capacity to pay its short-term debts. The Quick Ratio is an indicator used to determine a company's ability to meet its short-term obligations with its most liquid assets, excluding its inventory. A higher Quick Ratio indicates a better financial position. Current Ratio is an additional indicator of a company's ability to pay shortterm obligations, with a higher ratio signifying a better financial position. We will use the previously discussed ratios to compare the liquidity of KO,PEP, and the Beverage Industry Average. Upon initial evaluation, the three-year average of Coca-Cola outperformed PepsiCo with a Quick Ratio of 0.89x and a Current Ratio of 1.07x versus PepsiCo's .72x and .89x respectively. Additionally, Coca-Cola displays better liquidity with its Financial Leverage figures of 4.39x versus PepsiCo's 5.99x. The better Financial Leverage figures indicate to potential investors that Coca-Cola is a better steward of its investments and will be able to meet its short-term obligations. While Coca-Cola's liquidity indicators outperform PepsiCo's, it still trails the Beverage Industry Average. The evaluation of a company's viability has been our driving factor for this comparative analysis. We have analyzed multiple indicators to assess PepsiCo's and Coca-Cola's three-year average financial performance data to each other and the Beverage Industry Average. The Matrix used to determine the performance of these companies has been a gauge of these companies' liquidity, solvency, and ultimately profitability. This has shown that even though one data point might reflect better performance, an investor must analyze the company as a whole to get a true picture of a company's viability. Upon analysis of the aggregate data an investor who is looking for a stock to invest in might determine that Coca-Cola would be a safer investment due to its Quick Ratio, Current Ratio, Financial Leverage, and Gross Margin data outperforming PepsiCo's. Even though the aggregate three-year Industry Average data showed better financials than Coca-Cola's, ultimately the ticker KO would be a superior investment due to its significantly healthier profitability. Which in the long run is what dictates a company staying in Coca-Cola with the ticker KO, and PepsiCo with the ticker PEP, are two of the world's largest competitors in the Beverage Industry. These powerhouse companies dominate the industry by leveraging a combined Market Cap of over 460 billion dollars. In the following, we will assess these companies' viability to maintain their current positions in the market compared to each other and in the industry. By examining given data points, to include the following liquidity, profitability, and solvency one can determine the company's ability to sustain or grow in the market. Upon initial investigation of a company's viability, one would be drawn to start its analytical process by evaluating a company's profitability. Profitability defines a measure of the income or operating success of a company for any given period. Utilizing Gross Margin and Return on Equity (ROE) we can evaluate a company's profitability relative to its competitors and the Industry Average. PepsiCo shows a three-year average Gross Margin of 54.55% and a Return on Equity of 57.26%. While Coca-Cola shows a three-year average Gross Margin of 60.12% and a Return on Equity of 44.88%. We can see that both companies outperformed the Industry Average of 43% Gross Margin and 27.10% Return on Equity. Even though both companies outperformed the industry average the data shows a split, with PepsiCo showing a better Return on Equity and Coca-Cola displaying a better Gross Margin. Additionally, solvency can be an indicator of a company's ability to survive over a long period of time and is a measure of its overall long-term debt to assets. Debt to EBITDA and Debt to Equity are indicators that we will be using to evaluate PepsiCo and Coca-Cola to each other and the Industry Average. While PepsiCo's Debt to EBITDA of 281.86% is lower than CocaCola's at 358.92%, Coca-Cola shows a better Debt to Equity of 210.99% versus PepsiCo's 265.49%. This is an area that the data displays or indicates both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola underperforming the Industry Average Debt to EBITDA of 140.90\% and Debt to Equity of 67.65%. While the data indicates neither company dominates over its rival, the fact that both companies are underperforming the market Industry Average is probably related to the gargantuan size of these companies versus the Industry Average. Finally, the capability of a company to pay its debt in the short term can help an investor determine the company's capacity to grow its market share. By observing the Quick Ratio and Current Ratio we can ascertain the business's capacity to pay its short-term debts. The Quick Ratio is an indicator used to determine a company's ability to meet its short-term obligations with its most liquid assets, excluding its inventory. A higher Quick Ratio indicates a better financial position. Current Ratio is an additional indicator of a company's ability to pay shortterm obligations, with a higher ratio signifying a better financial position. We will use the previously discussed ratios to compare the liquidity of KO,PEP, and the Beverage Industry Average. Upon initial evaluation, the three-year average of Coca-Cola outperformed PepsiCo with a Quick Ratio of 0.89x and a Current Ratio of 1.07x versus PepsiCo's .72x and .89x respectively. Additionally, Coca-Cola displays better liquidity with its Financial Leverage figures of 4.39x versus PepsiCo's 5.99x. The better Financial Leverage figures indicate to potential investors that Coca-Cola is a better steward of its investments and will be able to meet its short-term obligations. While Coca-Cola's liquidity indicators outperform PepsiCo's, it still trails the Beverage Industry Average. The evaluation of a company's viability has been our driving factor for this comparative analysis. We have analyzed multiple indicators to assess PepsiCo's and Coca-Cola's three-year average financial performance data to each other and the Beverage Industry Average. The Matrix used to determine the performance of these companies has been a gauge of these companies' liquidity, solvency, and ultimately profitability. This has shown that even though one data point might reflect better performance, an investor must analyze the company as a whole to get a true picture of a company's viability. Upon analysis of the aggregate data an investor who is looking for a stock to invest in might determine that Coca-Cola would be a safer investment due to its Quick Ratio, Current Ratio, Financial Leverage, and Gross Margin data outperforming PepsiCo's. Even though the aggregate three-year Industry Average data showed better financials than Coca-Cola's, ultimately the ticker KO would be a superior investment due to its significantly healthier profitability. Which in the long run is what dictates a company staying in